FESAC&Strategic&Planning&(SP)&Report · 2014-09-25 · FESAC&Strategic&Planning&(SP)&Report Strategic&planning&is&the&acceptable&process&for&making&investment decisions&to&realize&the&mission&and&goals&of&aprogram's

FESAC Mee)ng Monday 22 September 2014

Marrio: Washingtonian Hotel, Gaithersburg, MD

Mark Koepke, West Virginia University FESAC Strategic Planning Panel Chair

FESAC Strategic Planning (SP) Report Ini0a0ves and Primary/Suppor0ng Recommenda0ons

from Priori0es Assessment and Budget Scenario Formula0on

FESAC Strategic Planning (SP) Report

Strategic planning is the acceptable process for making investment decisions to realize the mission and goals of a program's vision. A good strategy should extend a li:le bit outside the comfort zone. True strategy is about placing bets, making hard choices, and maximizing the odds for success, rather than minimizing risk. Good strategic development involves deciding the goals that are worth achieving, what it would take to achieve them, and whether or not they are realis)c. The ranking of strategic priori)es comprises the charge to the FESAC Strategic Planning Panel where the priority assessment and budget scenarios were to address the next 10 years (2015 through 2024) with a 2025 vision.

Ini0a0ves and Primary/Suppor0ng Recommenda0ons from Priori0es Assessment and Budget Scenario Formula0on

Outline of Presenta)on Discussion of charge le:er and approach taken by panel Report structure Introduc)on – Forward Look SP Panel process Ini)a)ves and primary/suppor)ng recommenda)ons Budgetary considera)ons Burning Plasma Science: Founda'ons Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse Discovery Plasma Science Partnerships with Other-‐Federal and Interna)onal Research Programs Communica)on: Community white papers Communica)on: Community workshops and presenta)ons Detailed narra)ve of Leverage and Partner opportuni)es with DOE, other-‐federal, and interna)onal Summary and Discussion

FESAC is charged to assess the priori)es among con)nuing and poten)al new scien)fic, engineering, and technical research program investments within and among each of the three subprograms in FES’s newly structured program: •  the science of predic0on and control of burning plasmas ranging from the

strongly-‐driven state to the self-‐heated state (FOUNDATIONS), •  the science of fusion plasmas , plasma-‐material interac0ons, engineering and

materials physics modeling and experimental valida0on, and fusion nuclear science approaching and beyond ITER-‐relevant heat fluxes neutron fluences, and pulse lengths (LONG PULSE), and

•  the study of laboratory plasmas and the high-‐energy-‐density state relevant to astrophysical phenomena, the development of advanced measurement valida0on, and the science of plasma control important to industrial applica0ons (DISCOVERY PLASMA SCIENCE).

•  A 4th subprogram (HIGH POWER), establishing the scien)fic basis for robust control of the self-‐heated, burning plasma state, uses ITER as the keystone, is not so focused on domes)c capabili)es, and is not emphasized in this charge.

FESAC Strategic Planning (SP) Panel gathered op)ons for ini)a)ves and recommenda)ons

So that FES can formulate the FES strategic plan required by the Fiscal Year 2014 Omnibus Appropria)ons Act by mid-‐January 2015, the DOE Office of Science (DOE-‐SC) asks FESAC •  to priori)ze between the FES Program’s subprogram elements, •  to include views on new facili)es, new research ini)a)ves, and

facility closures, •  to establish a scien)fic basis for advancing fusion nuclear

science, •  to assess poten)al for strengthened or new partnerships with

other federal agencies and interna)onal research programs that foster opportuni)es otherwise unavailable to FES-‐supported scien)sts, and

•  to make use of prior studies and reports.

FESAC Strategic Planning (SP) Panel assessed priori)es and priori)zed ini)a)ves

This is an extremely important charge in the eyes of the Office of Science and for the fusion community, with high visibility to policymakers and to our own universi)es and na)onal laboratories. Built into the process was the commitment to having the panel gather informa'on openly and deliberate in an unencumbered, unbiased, and independent manner that minimizes conflict of interest issues while providing the best technical advice for the charge. The priori)es and the ini)a)ves that were ranked came from the research community. The Panel did not cook up anything new. To sa)sfy the budget scenarios, a strategic spectrum of subprogram elements were able to be accelerated ahead of other elements while balancing facility closure with new facility planning and expanded collabora)ons.

FESAC SP Panel had the responsibility and intent to deliver a serious, careful, and precise response to the charge

Community Communica)on

This website supports the 2014 FESAC Strategic Planning Panel. Led by Prof. Mark Koepke (WVU, Chair) and Prof. Steve Zinkle (UT -‐ K, Vice Chair). Fusion Energy Sciences contact at DOE: Sam Barish Members of the subcommi:ee are listed here. Panel Documents Charge, by Patricia Dehmer, Ac)ng Director, Office of Science, April 8, 2014 Presenta)on at FESAC, by E. Synakowski, Assoc Director, FES. April 10, 2014 Mo)va)on and Process, by Prof. Mark Koepke, FESAC SP Panel Chair Request for Input Submi:ed white papers received by the FESAC subcommi:ee are available here. Informa)on on Public Mee)ngs, June 3-‐5 and July 8-‐10. Click here to see the detailed mee)ng schedule for 3-‐5 June. Click here for instruc)ons to remotely connect to the mee)ng, using Adobe Connect. Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse, June 3, Tuesday, (12 talks). Discovery Science, June 4, Wednesday, (12 talks). Burning Plasma Science: Founda)ons, June 5, Thursday, (12 talks). Burning Plasma Science: Founda)ons, July 8-‐10, (12 talks/day): AT and ST Experiments, Theory and Simula)on, Plasma-‐on-‐Surface Interac)on Reference Documents and Format Guidance for White Papers and Presenta)ons

h:ps://www.burningplasma.org/ac)vi)es/?ar)cle=2014%20FESAC%20Strategic%20Planning%20Panel

FESAC Strategic Planning (SP) Panel Member List Mark Koepke: Panel Chair: West Virginia Univ. Discovery, Partnerships, APS-‐DPP Chair, FESAC Chair Steve Zinkle: Panel Vice Chair: Univ. Tennessee Long Pulse, FESAC Vice Chair

Kevin J. Bowers: LANL (guest scien)st) Founda)ons Troy Carter: University of California – Los Angeles Founda)ons, Discovery Don Correll: Lawrence Livermore Na)onal Lab Discovery, Partnerships Ara; Dasgupta: Naval Research Laboratory Discovery, Partnerships Chris Hegna: University of Wisconsin – Madison Founda)ons, Long Pulse William “Bill” Heidbrink: Univ. California – Irvine Founda)ons Stephen Knowlton: Auburn University (re)red) Founda)ons, Long Pulse Douglas Kothe: Oak Ridge Na)onal Laboratory Founda)ons, Partnerships

Stan Milora: Oak Ridge Na)onal Lab (re)red) Long Pulse, Partnerships, High Power David E. Newman: University of Alaska Founda)ons, Discovery Gert Patello: Pacific Northwest Na)onal Laboratory Long Pulse, Partnerships

Don Rej: Los Alamos Na)onal Laboratory Long Pulse, Partnerships Susana Reyes: Lawrence Livermore Na)onal Lab High Power, Long Pulse John Steadman: University of South Alabama FESAC ex-‐officio member represen'ng IEEE Partnerships Karl A. Van Bibber: Univ. California – Berkeley Long Pulse, Partnerships Alan WooMon: University of Texas-‐Aus)n (re)red) Founda)ons, Discovery, Partnerships Minami Yoda: Georgia Ins)tute of Technology FESAC ex-‐officio member represen'ng ANS-‐FED Long Pulse, Partnerships

Panel unanimously signed the report

Burning Plasma: Founda'ons Burning Plasma: Long Pulse Discovery Plasma Science Partnerships with other-‐federal and interna'onal programs.

The eighteen science and technology Thrusts from the 2009 MFE-‐ReNeW Report were considered, along with valuable community input to the Panel in 2014 through presenta)ons, Ques)on & Answer sessions, and white papers.

Closely related Thrusts that addressed an overarching topic were combined as an Ini)a)ve. Priori)za)on of the Thrusts in terms of metrics that included their importance to Vision 2025 directly led to formula)on of four overarching ini)a)ves. These four highest priority Ini)a)ves are categorized into two )ers.

The Panel worked in four subpanels

SP Panel thanks the research community The Panel members are indebted to the research community for its thoughoul previous studies and its broad input into this report. The Panel considered this input, leaving no op)on off the table and resolving conflicts when they occurred, to reach a consensus that is the basis for the recommended 10-‐year vision.

The U.S. fusion community looks forward to this transforma)ve era in fusion research that will lay the founda)ons for a world-‐leading U.S. subprogram and facility in fusion nuclear science.

To our na)onal and interna)onal colleagues, the Panel conveys a hearoelt thank you. We appreciate your understanding of the )ght schedule and the magnitude of the charge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Execu've Summary 1. Introduc'on and Background Fusion Science – A Forward Look Discussion of Charge and Panel Approach Ini)a)ves and Recommenda)ons 2. Burning Plasma Science: Founda'ons Defini)on and status Thrusts Priori)es Ini)a)ves Where we are in 2025 and future perspec)ve 3. Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse Defini)on and status Thrusts Priori)es Ini)a)ves Where we are in 2025 and future perspec)ve

4. Discovery Plasma Science Defini)on Status Priori)za)on and Recommenda)ons Budget Scenarios Where we are in 2025 and future perspec)ve 5. Partnerships with Other Federal and Interna'onal Programs Introduc)on Evalua)on Process and Priori)za)on Criteria Federal Partnership Opportuni)es ITER Partnership Interna)onal Partnership Opportuni)es Ini)a)ve-‐Relevant Partnerships 6. Budgetary Considera'ons Introduc)on Facili)es Implementa)on Findings Appendices

Report Structure

Introduc)on – Forward Look

Fusion, the energy source that powers the sun and stars, promises a nearly limitless high-‐density energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases. Fusion energy could fulfill one of the basic needs of a modern civiliza)on: abundant energy with excellent safety features and modest environmental impact that is available to all na)ons. The quest for controlled fusion energy— replica)ng on earth the energy of the Sun— is a scien)fic grand challenge. Arer six decades of research, magne)c fusion science has successfully progressed to the threshold of the magne)c fusion energy era. This is an era characterized by burning plasma, steady-‐state opera)on, advanced materials that can withstand the harsh environment inside a fusion reactor, and safe regenera)on of the fusion fuel from within the reactor.

Fusion Science: Preface

At the same )me ITER is being constructed, interna)onal colleagues are building other large-‐scale facili)es with capabili)es that complement those in the U.S.. These new interna)onal facili)es provide two opportuni)es for U.S. fusion science. (1) for the U.S. to ini)ate and grow a new subprogram in fusion nuclear science, including the design of a facility to conduct research in an area not currently being addressed interna)onally.

(2) for the U.S. to selec)vely engage in interna)onal collabora)ons to access new parameter regimes in prepara)on for the design of the new facility.

The priori)es presented have been formulated to enhance and direct areas of U.S. scien)fic and engineering leadership in coordina)on with rapidly expanding interna)onal exper)se and capabili)es to realize the prospect of a global fusion energy future at the earliest realis)c date. This report provides the basis of that plan with a 10-‐year vision with priority research recommenda)ons to allow the U.S. to make decisive contribu)ons in fusion science in this new era.

Fusion Science: Preface (cont’d)

Vision 2025: U.S. will con)nue as a world leader in fusion

Priori)es resolve ranked scien)fic/technical gaps Scien)fic opportuni)es on the path to fusion energy development, including interna)onal partnering, are pursued. U.S. program transi)ons to a fusion energy research program to (1)  enable successful opera)on of ITER with significant leading

par)cipa)on by the U.S.; (2)  provide the scien)fic basis for a U.S. Fusion Nuclear Science

Facility (FNSF); and (3)  create a U.S. “Genera)on ITER-‐FNSF” workforce that is leading

scien)fic discoveries and technological innova)on.

SP Panel Process

Strategic Planning (SP) panel ac)vi)es

FESAC Strategic Planning (SP) panel Mee)ng-‐Agenda Timeline Week 3 (30 April): 1st SP Teleconference: Plans for Process and Gathering Input Week 6 (20 May): 2nd SP Teleconference: Gathered Input – relevant reports Week 8 (2-‐6 June): 1st SP Mee'ng – 3-‐days of talks (Tuesday, Wed, Thursday) Week 13 (7-‐11 July): 2nd SP Mee'ng – 3-‐days of talks (Tuesday, Wed, Thursday) Week 19 (20 August): 3rd SP Telecon: Priority Assessment Week 20 (28 August): 4th SP Telecon: Budget Scenarios Week 21 (2-‐5 September): 3rd SP Mee'ng – no talks, panel only Week 24 (22-‐23 September): FESAC Mee'ng for SP Panel Report Approval

Charge issued: 8 April; Koepke requests 2-‐month deadline extension 11 April; Request denied 14 April; Subcommi:ee finalized: 2 May; Report deadline: 1 Oct h:ps://www.burningplasma.org/ac)vi)es/?ar)cle=2014 FESAC Strategic Planning Panel

Ini)a)ves and primary/suppor)ng recommenda)ons

Vision 2025: Primary Recommenda)on 1

Control of Burning Plasmas: The FES experimental subprogram needs an integrated and priori)zed approach to achieve a significant leading par)cipa)on role by the U.S. on ITER. Specifically, new proposed solu)ons will be applied to two long-‐standing and ubiquitous show-‐stopping issues, relevant for tokamak-‐based burning fusion plasma. The issues are: (1) dealing with unwanted transients, and (2) dealing the interac)on between the plasma boundary and material walls.

Vision 2025: Primary Recommenda)on 2 Fusion Predic)ve Modeling:

FES theory and simula)on subprogram should develop the modeling capability to understand, predict, and control

(a) burning, long-‐pulse, fusion plasmas and (b) plasma-‐facing components.

Such a capability, when combined with experimental opera)onal experience, will maximize ITER opera)on and ITER-‐results interpreta)on for burning, long-‐pulse, fusion plasmas, and will decide the necessary requirements for future fusion facili)es. This endeavor must encompass the regions from plasma core through to the edge and into the surrounding materials, and requires coupling the nonlinear, mul)-‐disciplinary, mul)-‐scale, phenomena, in experimentally validated, theory-‐based models


Fusion Nuclear Science: A fusion nuclear science subprogram should be created to provide the science and technology understanding for informing decisions on the preferred plasma confinement, materials, and tri)um fuel-‐cycle concepts for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF), a proposed U.S.-‐based interna)onal centerpiece beyond 2025. FNSF’s mission is to u)lize an experimental plasma plaoorm having a long-‐dura)on pulse (up to one million seconds) for the complex integra)on and for the convergence of fusion plasma science and fusion nuclear science.


Discovery Plasma Science: FES stewardship of basic plasma research should be accomplished through strengthening of peer-‐reviewed university, na)onal laboratory, and industry collabora)ons. In order to realize the broadest range of plasma science discoveries, the research should be enhanced through federal-‐agency partnerships that include cost-‐sharing of intermediate-‐scale, collabora)ve facili)es

The experiments available to implement these four primary recommenda)ons are located both in the U.S. and at major interna)onal research facili)es. The interna)onal experiments provide both access to unique magne)c geometries and to long-‐pulse opera)ng regimes that are unavailable in the U.S. at that scale. These experiments should provide informa)on required to design FNSF and, ul)mately, a fusion demonstra)on power plant.

Partnering with other-‐federal and interna)onal programs

Tier 1: • Control of deleterious transient events (Transients) • Taming the plasma-‐material interface (Interface) Tier 2: • Experimentally validated integrated predic)ve capabili)es (Predic've) • A fusion nuclear science subprogram and facility (FNS) Tier 1 Ini)a)ves are higher priority than Tier 2 Ini)a)ves. Within a )er, the priority is equal.

Four Ini)a)ves

Undesirable transients in tokamak plasmas are ubiquitous, but tolerable, occurrences in most present-‐day experiments, but some events could prove too limi)ng to regular opera)on of an experiment without frequent shutdown for repairs. To reduce the threat of disrup)ons, both passive and ac)ve control techniques, as well as preemp)ve plasma shutdown measures, will be employed.

Control deleterious transient events in burning plasmas: Transients Ini)a)ve (Tier 1)

Understanding the boundary that extends from the high-‐temp-‐erature plasma core to the surrounding material is a priority. This boundary region establishes the heat and par)cle fluxes incident on material surfaces, and the response of the material surfaces influences the boundary. Understanding, accommoda)ng, and controlling this complex interac)on, while maintaining high confinement, is a prerequisite for ITER success and for designing FNSF. A self-‐consistent solu)on to the plasma-‐materials interface challenge requires the construc)on of a prototypic high-‐power and high-‐fluence linear divertor simulator. Results from this facility will be iterated with experimental results on suitably equipped domes)c and interna)onal tokamaks and stellarators, as well as in numerical simula)ons.

Taming the plasma-‐material interface: Interface Ini)a)ve (Tier 1)

Next decade provides an opportunity to break ground in integrated predic)ve understanding. Tradi)onally, Theory and Simula)on model isolated pheno-‐mena based on mathema)cal formula)ons that have restricted validity regimes. However, there are crucial situa)ons where the coupling between the validity regime and the phenomena is required, which implies that new phenomena can appear. Expanded compu)ng capabili)es, enhancements in analy)c theory, and the use of applied mathema)cs is required. This effort must be connected to a laboratory experiments and diagnos)cs to provide crucial tests of theory and allow for valida)on.

Experimentally Validated Integrated Predic)ve Capabili)es: Predic)ve Ini)a)ve (Tier 2)

The selec)ons of the plasma magne)c configura)on and plasma opera)onal regimes need to be established based on collabora)ve long-‐pulse, high-‐power research (domes)c and interna)onal ). Iden)fica)on is needed of a viable approach to a robust plasma-‐materials interface that provides acceptably high heat flux capability and low net erosion rates without impairing plasma performance or resul)ng in excessive tri)um entrapment. Materials research needs to be expanded to comprehend and mi)gate neutron-‐irradia)on effects, and fuel-‐cycle research is needed to iden)fy a feasible tri)um genera)on and power-‐conversion concept. A fusion materials neutron-‐irradia)on facility that leverages an exis)ng megawa:-‐level neutron spalla)on source is envisioned as a highly cost-‐effec)ve op)on.

Fusion Nuclear Science: FNS Ini)a)ve (Tier 2)

In concert with the ini)a)ves, DPS provides transforma)onal ideas. DPS research seeks to address the wide range of fundamental science, including fusion, outlined by the NRC Plasma 2010 report. DPS ac)vi)es are synergis)c with the research mission of other federal agencies and opportuni)es exist to develop and expand strategic partnerships between FES and other agencies. Addressing fundamental science ques)ons at the fron)er of plasma science requires a spectrum of laboratory experimental facili)es from small-‐scale facili)es with a single principal inves)gator to intermediate-‐scale, highly collabora)ve facili)es. Interac)ons between larger facili)es found at na)onal laboratories and small and intermediate facili)es can advance DPS fron)ers, and enrich the training the next genera)on of plasma scien)sts and engineers.

Discovery Plasma Science

Budgetary Considera)ons for Vision 2025 (1)  enable successful opera)on of ITER with significant leading

par)cipa)on by the U.S.; (2)  provide the scien)fic basis for a U.S. Fusion Nuclear Science

Facility (FNSF); and (3)  create a U.S. “Genera)on ITER-‐FNSF” workforce that is

leading scien)fic discoveries and technological innova)on.

Implementa)on of the Ini)a)ves are )ed to the four Budget Scenario assump)ons

0, -‐$400M, -‐$780M, -‐$900M in the integrated funds are the decrements between Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 (previous page). For all scenarios, it was assumed that the scien)fic workforce was retained in the event of a facility closure. In realloca)ng funds to the Ini)a)ves, there were obvious problems with )me histories. Closures provide a sudden reduc)on, whereas what is oren required for a new Ini)a)ve is a ramp. For the first ~5 years (~2015 to ~2020) the number of run weeks of the two opera)ng facili)es (NSTX-‐U and DIII-‐D) should be kept significantly higher than in the recent past. Between ~2020 and ~2025, the number of facili)es should be at least one, with the date of any shut down (or cold storage) being dependent on budget beyond the smooth scenario. If two facili)es were maintained (perhaps a possibility in only the highest budget, Budget Scenario 1), the opera)onal availability of one but not both could be reduced.

Implementa)on

Construc)on a prototypic high-‐power and high-‐fluence linear divertor simulator and an intense, neutron-‐irradia'on source leveraging an exis)ng MW-‐level neutron spalla)on source, are recommended. Resources for investments in plasma technology and materials, fusion nuclear science, theory and simula'on; and DIII-‐D and/or NSTX-‐U upgrades should come from a major facility, or facili)es, being closed, mothballed, and/or reduced in run weeks, and/or reconsidera)on of DPS funding alloca)ons. For all budget scenarios, the Panel recommends: • increased interna)onal collabora)ons, where scien)fically jus)fied, • the opera)on of at least one major domes)c plasma machine, • the simultaneous opera)on of DIII-‐D and NSTX-‐U for of order 5 years, and • the cessa)on of C-‐Mod opera)ons. The five-‐year opera)on of NSTX-‐U enables considera)on of a spherical torus magne)c geometry for FNSF. The number and level of facili)es opera)ng between years 5 and 10 is budget dependent. It is crucial that scien)sts and engineers from the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center par)cipate in the proposed Ini)a)ves including taking leadership roles.

Vision 2025, recommenda)ons, and ini)a)ves will require redirec)on of resources over the decade

• 2014 Modest Growth –Vision 2025 has an acceptable probability of being achieved. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 Ini)a)ves go forward, informing the design of FNSF. The U.S. features prominently in four areas: Transients, Interface, Predic)ve, and, importantly, FNS. • 2014 Cost of Living – Vision 2025 can be met, but with lower probability, with probable consequence for one of the two remaining major facili)es or for DPS funding. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 ini)a)ves go forward, with three (Transients, Interface, Predic)ve) being emphasized. If necessary the Tier 2 Ini)a)ve FNS is slowed down. The U.S. features prominently in at least three Ini)a)ve areas (Transients, Interface, Predic)ve), with the possibility of featuring prominently in the FNS Ini)a)ve. Focused effort on 4 highest-‐priority ini)a)ves, with U.S. strengths in diagnos)cs, experiment, theory, simula)on, and computa)on, can support a vibrant program and sets stage for world leadership in emerging key fusion nuclear science research.

Panel explored various funding scenarios to derive credible funding profiles for the highest priority research ac)vi)es.

• 2014 Flat – Vision 2025 will be only par)ally met, with consequence for one of the two remaining major facili)es, and for DPS. The two Tier 1 Ini)a)ves (Transients, Interface) and one Tier 2 Ini)a)ve (Predic)ve) go forward, but the Tier 2 Ini)a)ve FNS is slowed. The U.S. fusion program features prominently in two, possibly three Ini)a)ve areas (Transients, Interface, Predic)ve) . • 2015 Cost of Living – Vision 2025 will be par)ally met, but a second Ini)a)ve is lost. However, the U.S. will maintain leadership encompassed by the two Tier-‐1 Ini)a)ves, specifically Transients and Interface. The necessary delay to the Ini)a)ves FNS and Predic)ve could allow interna)onal partners to take the leading role in these areas from the U.S., however the U.S. could feature prominently in two Ini)a)ve areas (Transients and Interface).

Panel explored various funding scenarios to derive credible funding profiles for the highest priority research ac)vi)es.

During Phase 1, both NSTX -‐U and DIII-‐D should be available for ITER-‐related research, for assessing FNSF magne)c geometry, and for Transients Ini)a)ve. New interna)onal partnership arise. During Phase 2, at least one of NSTX-‐U/DIII-‐D is required for ITER-‐related research and for Interface and Predic)ve Ini)a)ves. New interna)onal partnerships on superconduc)ng tokamaks and stellarators flourish. Arer ~2025, 1 facility is required both for programma)c research and, opera)ng as a User Facility, for DPS. The best facility for beyond ~2025 is not necessarily the same as the best facility for the ~5 years prior to ~2025. If this is the case, then cold storage, i.e., mothballing, should be considered. Between 2015 and 2025, the DPS program is strengthened by peer-‐reviewed univ., na)onal lab, and industry collabora)ons. These collabora)ons will be enhanced by partnering with federal agencies and by cost-‐sharing collabora)ve, intermediate-‐scale facili)es in order to realize the broadest range of plasma science discoveries. With cost-‐effec)ve high-‐impact research enabled by collabora)ons and partnerships, the DPS program will train a U.S. “Genera)on ITER-‐FNSF” workforce that is leading scien)fic discoveries and technological innova)on.

New facili)es are required for Vision 2025 Ini)a)ves

2015: Ini)ate cessa)on of C-‐Mod opera)ons 2025: Either DIII-‐D or NSTX-‐U opera)ng as a na)onal user facility for Discovery Plasma Science as well as for programma)c objec)ves.

Phase I: • DIII-‐D opera)ng and informa)on on transient mi)ga)on, boundary physics, plasma control, and other ITER-‐related research is being provided • NSTX-‐U opera)ng and informa)on on poten)al path to a FNSF-‐ST, boundary physics, and on ITER-‐related research is being provided • Linear divertor simulator under construc)on • Predic)ve Ini)a)ve launched and grown • FNS subprogram ini)ated • Scien)fically jus)fied interna)onal partnerships are increased on leading interna)onal superconduc)ng advanced tokamaks and stellarators • Expanded integra)on of DPS elements are facilitated for effec)ve stewardship of plasma science

Timeline for Facili)es and Ini)a)ves

• Interna)onal partnerships centered on leading interna)onal superconduc)ng advanced tokamaks and stellarators • Minimum of one domes)c facility (DIII-‐D, NSTX-‐U) opera)ng and providing informa)on for taming the Interface Ini)a)ve • Linear divertor simulator opera)ng and providing informa)on for Interface Ini)a)ve • Predic)ve Ini)a)ve is fully func)onal and providing informa)on for the Interface Ini)a)ve • FNS subprogram on science and technology for fusion materials thriving, including a new neutron-‐irradia)on capability that levers an exis)ng high-‐power spalla)on source • Priority increasing for fusion power extrac)on, and tri)um sustainability • DPS collabora)ons and partnerships are advancing the fron)ers of DPS knowledge through highly levered collabora)ve facili)es.

Phase II:

Burning Plasma Science: Founda)ons

The subprogram Founda)ons encompasses fundamental and applied research pertaining to the magne)c confinement of plasmas with emphasis on ITER and future burning plasmas. Both experimental and theore)cal contribu)ons are included in Founda)ons with the key objec)ves being to establish the scien)fic basis for the op)miza)on of approaches to magne)c confinement fusion based on the tokamak (including the spherical torus), develop a predic)ve understanding of burning plasma behavior, and develop technologies that will enhance the performance of both exis)ng and next-‐step machines.

Founda)ons: Defini)on

Founda)ons subprogram elements •  The research and opera)ons of three major U.S. machines, the DIII-‐D tokamak, the Na)onal Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade (NSTX-‐U), and the C-‐MOD tokamak. Infrastructure improvements to these facili)es are included, but ac)vi)es pertaining to steady-‐state opera)on and fusion nuclear science are part of the Long Pulse category.

•  Theory and Scien)fic Discovery Through Advanced Compu)ng (SciDAC) ac)vi)es.

•  Smaller tokamak projects. •  Hea)ng, fueling and transient mi)ga)on research.

Recommenda)on: Maintain the strong experimental U.S. focus on elimina0ng and/or mi0ga0ng destruc0ve transient events to enable the high-‐performance opera0on of ITER. Develop improved predic0ve modeling of plasma behavior during controlled transient events to explore the basis for the disrup0on-‐free sustained tokamak scenario for FNSF and DEMO. Recommenda)on: Undertake a technical assessment with community experts to ascertain which exis0ng facility could most effec0vely address the key boundary physics issues. Recommenda)on: Maintain and strengthen exis0ng base theory/simula0on and SCIDAC subprograms to maintain world leadership and leverage ac0vi0es with the broader applied mathema0cs and computer science communi0es. Recommenda)on: Ensure excellence in the experimentally validated integrated Predic0ve Ini0a0ve with a peer-‐reviewed, compe00ve proposal process. A community-‐wide process is needed to define the scope and implementa0on strategy for realizing a whole-‐device predic0ve model. Recommenda)on: Focus research efforts on studies crucial to deciding the viability of the ST for FNSF.

Suppor)ng Recommenda)ons for Founda)ons

ITER research is benefi)ng from the Transients and Interface Ini)a)ves. Accurate predic)ons of average heat loads to the divertor and pedestal height are being made. ITER discharge behavior can be modeled sufficiently to predict future alpha-‐heated burning ITER plasmas. Looking beyond 2025, the advanced control and sustainment techniques developed on DIII-‐D and extended to tests on the Asian superconduc)ng tokamaks directly contribute to the ITER mission’s long-‐pulse discharges.

The Founda)ons subprogram in 2025

Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse

The plasma performance achievable in current or recent tokamak and stellarator experiments, characterized by the fusion figure-‐of-‐merit nτET incorpora)ng the plasma density n, plasma temperature T, and overall energy containment )me τE, generally decreases as the dura)on of the plasma increases. The category of Long Pulse research encompasses the extension of high-‐performance plasmas to discharge dura)ons that progressively sa)sfy the goals of ITER and FNSF, and project to DEMO and, ul)mately, to steady-‐state fusion power plants.

Long Pulse: Defini)on

Fig. 4.1 in FESAC’s 2012 report on Opportuni)es in Interna)onal Collabora)on

Graphical Visualiza'on of Short and Long Pulse-‐Dura'on Discharges in terms of Plasma-‐Confinement Performance

Long Pulse subprogram elements •  The research and opera)ons of DIII-‐D, Na)onal Spherical Torus

Experiment Upgrade (NSTX-‐U), and C-‐Mod, •  Long-‐pulse plasma physics research using stellarators and interna)onal

superconduc)ng tokamaks, •  Ac)vi)es in the theory and simula)on and the Scien)fic Discovery

Through Advanced Compu)ng (SciDAC) subprograms related to long-‐pulse plasma opera)ons, plasma material interac)ons, and fusion nuclear science issues,

•  Plasma-‐material interac)ons (PMI) and high heat flux (HHF) research for plasma-‐facing components during long pulse opera)on,

•  Materials science research to understand and mi)gate property degrada)on phenomena associated with intense D-‐T fusion neutron-‐irradia)on and to design new high-‐performance materials to enable prac)cal fusion energy,

•  Blanket engineering and science to devise solu)ons for crea)ng and reprocessing the tri)um fuel and efficiently u)lizing the deposited heat for electricity produc)on, and

•  Development of integrated designs and models for a:rac)ve fusion power concepts.

• Design and build the advanced mul)-‐effects linear divertor simulator described above to support the Interface Ini)a)ve. • Design and build a new fusion materials neutron-‐irradia)on facility that leverages an exis)ng MW-‐level neutron spalla)on source to support the Fusion Nuclear Sciences Ini)a)ve. • Invest in a research subprogram element on blanket technologies and tri)um sustainability that will advance from single-‐effects studies to mul)ple-‐effects and interac)ons studies.

Suppor)ng Recommenda)ons for Long Pulse

• The Interface and FNS Ini)a)ves have iden)fied scien)fically robust solu)ons for long pulse DT burning plasma machines. • The advanced linear divertor simulator is a world-‐leading user facility. • Using a fusion materials neutron-‐irradia)on test stand, the preliminary science basis for materials for FNSF and DEMO has been established. • FNSF configura)on is decided; design is underway based on new scien)fic knowledge of highly stable long pulse plasma configura)ons, high performance materials systems, innova)ve fusion blanket systems, and proven tri)um extrac)on techniques. • Stellarator plasmas suitable for long-‐pulse opera)on have been demonstrated in integrated tests. • Principles of long-‐pulse advanced tokamak opera)on are established.

The Long Pulse subprogram in 2025

Discovery Plasma Science

The subprogram Discovery Plasma Science stewards plasma innova)on and applica)ons by expanding the understanding of plasma behavior in concert with training the next genera)on of plasma scien)sts to help ensure the con)nua)on of U.S. leadership.

DPS: Defini)on

• General Plasma Science (GPS): FES should take the lead in exploring mul0-‐agency partnering for GPS ac0vi0es. This effort should include funding for intermediate-‐scale facili0es (as discussed in the NRC Plasma 2010 report) with funding for construc0on, opera0ons, facility-‐staff research, and the corresponding user research program. • High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP): FES should avail itself of SC and NNSA high-‐energy-‐density-‐physics user facili0es, within the context of the NNSA-‐SC Joint Program in HEDLP. This is especially true for the FES HEDLP community researchers who have been awarded experimental shot 0me, much as FES avails itself of the highly successful SciDAC partnership between ASCR and FES. • Self-‐Organized Systems: Elements of SO-‐Systems should adopt subprogram-‐wide metrics and 3-‐5-‐year peer reviews to cul0vate a suite of capabili0es that explore an intellectually broad set of scien0fic ques0ons related to self-‐organized systems. • Diagnos)c Measurement Innova)ons: FES should manage diagnos0c development and measurement innova0on to have a coordinated cross-‐cu_ng set of predic0ve model valida0on ac0vi0es across all DPS subprogram elements.

Suppor)ng Recommenda)ons for DPS

A component of the major FES facili)es should have a DPS User Community role per the SC descrip)on of User Facili)es and User Programs.

The DPS subprogram in 2025

Partnerships with Other-‐Federal and Interna)onal Research Programs

Suppor'ng Recommenda'on: Develop a mutually beneficial partnership agreement with JT60-‐SA , similar to those already established on EAST and KSTAR, that will allow U.S. Fusion researchers access to this larger-‐scale, long-‐pulse device in support of the report ini0a0ves. Suppor'ng Recommenda'on Develop a mutually beneficial partnership with BES that would enable fusion materials scien0sts access to the Spalla0on Neutron Source for irradia0on studies. Such a partnership will require frequent and effec0ve FES-‐BES communica0on, strong FES project management that adheres to Office of Science Project Management best prac0ces, and acceptable mi0ga0on of opera0onal risks. There are poten)al opportuni)es for U.S. fusion researchers to collabora)vely access unique foreign facili)es, such as: (1) large scale corrosion and thermo-‐mechanical test loop facili)es; (2) high heat flux and plasma material interac)on facili)es, tokamak diverter exposure facili)es (WEST, EAST, ASDEX, etc; (3) future possible fusion neutron irradia)on facili)es such as IFMIF: (4) tri)um facili)es;and (5) collabora)ons with opera)onal, safety and regulatory experts on how to best develop a performance-‐based regulatory basis for fusion power (Canada, IAEA, JET, ITER).

Partnerships and collabora)ons in 2025

Low opportunity corresponds to mee)ng one or fewer of the four Panel priori)za)on criteria; medium meets two or three criteria; high meets all four criteria.

Federal Programs within DOE Office of Science


Other DOE Federal Programs


Other Federal Programs

Minimal partnership corresponds to fewer than two scien)st and engineer FTEs; moderate between two and five FTEs; strong greater than five FTEs.


Informa)on and guidance in submi}ng input was provided to the research community

Informa)on on the charge is detailed on the FIRE website (h:p://fire.pppl.gov) under "Fusion Program News". To access reference documents and to receive white-‐paper guidance, please see the following website kindly arranged and hosted by the U.S. Burning Plasma Organiza)on: h:ps://www.burningplasma.org/ac)vi)es/?ar)cle=2014 FESAC Strategic Planning Panel


This website supports the 2014 FESAC Strategic Planning Panel. Led by Prof. Mark Koepke (WVU, Chair) and Prof. Steve Zinkle (UT -‐ K, Vice Chair). Fusion Energy Sciences contact at DOE: Sam Barish Members of the subcommi:ee are listed here. Panel Documents Charge, by Patricia Dehmer, Ac)ng Director, Office of Science, April 8, 2014 Presenta)on at FESAC, by E. Synakowski, Assoc Director, FES. April 10, 2014 Mo)va)on and Process, by Prof. Mark Koepke, FESAC SP Panel Chair Request for Input Submi:ed white papers received by the FESAC subcommi:ee are available here. Informa)on on Public Mee)ngs, June 3-‐5 and July 8-‐10. Click here to see the detailed mee)ng schedule for 3-‐5 June. Click here for instruc)ons to remotely connect to the mee)ng, using Adobe Connect. Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse, June 3, Tuesday, (12 talks). Discovery Science, June 4, Wednesday, (12 talks). Burning Plasma Science: Founda)ons, June 5, Thursday, (12 talks).

Burning Plasma Science: Founda)ons, July 8-‐10, (12 talks/day): AT and ST Experiments, Theory and Simula)on, Plasma-‐on-‐Surface Interac)on Reference Documents and Format Guidance for White Papers and Presenta)ons

h:ps://www.burningplasma.org/ac)vi)es/?ar)cle=2014%20FESAC%20Strategic%20Planning%20Panel

Community White Papers SP Panel received 95 White Papers

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject Mohamed Abdou, Alice Ying, Sergey Smolentsev, and Neil B. Morley of UCLA Scien)fic Framework for Advancing Blanket/FW/Tri)um Fuel Cycle Systems towards FNSF & DEMO Readiness – Input to FESAC Strategic Plan Panel on Blanket/FW Research Ini)a)ves Ed Barnat, Sandia Na)onal Laboratories, Albuquerque N.M. Dynamic exploratory clusters: Facilita)ng inter-‐disciplinary discovery driven research L.R. Baylor, G.L. Bell, T. S. Bigelow, J. B. Caughman, R. H. Goulding, G.R. Hanson, and D.A. Rasmussen, ORNL, J. C. Hosea, G. Taylor, and R. Perkins, PPPL, J. M. Lohr, P. B. Parks, and R. I. Pinsker, GA, G. Nusinovich, U. of Maryland, M. A. Shapiro and R. J. Temkin, MIT Plasma Controlling and Actua)on Technologies that Enable Long Pulse Burning Plasma Science – Status and Priori)es R. Boivin (GA), M. Aus)n (UT), T. Biewer (ORNL), D. Brower (UCLA), E. Doyle (UCLA), G. McKee (UW), P. Snyder (GA) Enhanced Valida)on of Performance-‐Defining Physics through Measurement Innova)on

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject Dylan Brennan, President, UFA, Phil Ferguson, ORNL, Raymond Fonck, UWISC, Miklos Porkolab, MIT, Stewart Prager, PPPL, Ned Sauthoff US ITER, Tony Taylor, GA Perspec)ves on Ten-‐Year Planning for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program USBPO Diagnos)cs Topical Group: David L. Brower, Leader. Theodore M. Biewer, Deputy, with R. Boivin, R. Moyer, C. Skinner, D. Thomas, K. Tritz, and K. Young A Burning Plasma Diagnos)c Ini)a)ve for the US Magne)c Fusion Energy Science Program M. R. Brown, represen)ng P. M. Bellan, S. A. Cohen, D. Hwang, E. V. Belova. Swarthmore College The role of compact torus research in fusion energy science Tom Brown, PPPL, A Personal View U.S. Next Step Strategy for Magne)c Fusion C. Denise Caldwell, NSF MPS-‐PHY NSF'S Plasma Physics Program R.W. Callis, A. Garofalo, V. Chan, H. Guo, GA Applied Scien)fic Research to Prepare the Technology for Blanket and Nuclear Components to Enable Design of the Next-‐Step Burning Plasma Device (Status)

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject R.W. Callis, A. Garofalo, V. Chan, H. Guo, GA Applied Scien)fic Research to Prepare the Technology for Blanket and Nuclear Components to Enable Design of the Next-‐Step Burning Plasma Device (Ini)a)ve) C.S. Chang, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory First-‐Principles Simula)on of the Whole Fusion Physics on Leadership Class Computers, in collabora)on with ASCR scien)sts B. Coppi, MIT Physics The High Field Compact Line of Experiment: From Alcator to Ignitor and Beyond R Paul Drake, University of Michigan Opportuni)es and Challenges in High-‐Energy-‐Density Laboratory Plasmas R Paul Drake, University of Michigan Ini)a)ves in High-‐Energy-‐Density Laboratory Plasmas Philip C. Erhimion, PPPL OFES Stewardship of Plasma Science and its Partnering and Leveraging Discovery Science

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject R. Fonck, UWISC, G. McKee, GA, D. Smith, PPPL Revitalizing university and na)onal facility integra)on in Fusion Energy Science W. Fox, A. Bha:acharjee, H. Ji, K. Hill, I. Kaganovich, and R. Davidson, PPPL, A. Spitkovsky, Princeton U., D.D. Meyerhofer, R. Be}, D. Froula, and P. Nilson, U. Rochester, D. Uzdensky and C. Kuranz, UMICH, R. Petrasso and C.K. Li, MIT PSFC, S. Glenzer, SLAC Laboratory astrophysics and basic plasma physics with high-‐energy-‐density, laser-‐produced plasmas E. Fredrickson, PPPL Some Recent Advances in Understanding of Energe)c Par)cle Driven Instabili)es and Fast-‐ion Confinement. Andrea M. Garofalo and Tony S. Taylor, GA Leveraging Interna)onal Collabora)ons to Accelerate Development of the Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) S. H. Glenzer, SLAC Na)onal Accelerator Laboratory US leadership in Discovery Plasma & Fusion Science

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject R. Goldston, PPPL, B. LaBombard, D. Whyte, M. Zarnstorff, MIT PSFC A Strategy for Resolving the Problems of Plasma-‐Material Interac)on for FNSF C.M. Greenfield for the U.S. Burning Plasma Organiza)on Posi)oning the U.S. to Play a Leading Role in and Benefit from a Successful ITER Research Program Mar)n Greenwald, a personal view Implica)ons and Lessons from 2007 Strategic Planning Ac)vity and Subsequent Events H.Y. Guo, E.A. Unterberg, S.L. Allen, D.N. Hill, A.W. Leonard, P.C. Stangeby, D.M. Thomas and DIII-‐D BPMIC Team Developing Heat Flux and Advanced Material Solu)ons for Next-‐Step Fusion Devices W. Gu:enfelder, E. Belova, N.N. Gorelenkov, S.M. Kaye, J.E. Menard, M. Podesta, Y. Ren, and W.X. Wang, PPPL, D.L. Brower, N. Crocker, W.A. Peebles, T.L. Rhodes, and L. Schmitz, UCLA, J. Candy, G.M. Staebler, and R.E. Waltz, GA, J. Hillesheim, CCFE, C. Holland, UCSD, J.H. Irby and A.E. White, MIT, J.E. Kinsey, CompX, F.M. Levinton and H. Yuh, Nova Photonics, M.J. Pueschel, UWisc Valida)ng electromagne)c turbulence and transport effects for burning plasmas G.W. Hamme:, PPPL, with input from C.S. Chang, S. Kaye, and A. H. Hakim, PPPL, A. Pletzer and J. Cary, Tech-‐X An Advanced Compu)ng Ini)a)ve To Study Methods of Improving Fusion

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject R. J. Hawryluk PPPL, H. Berk UTEXAS, B. Breizman, UTEXAS, D. Darrow, PPPL, R. Granetz, MIT, D. Hillis, ORNL, A. Kritz, LEHIGH, G. Navra), COLUMBIA U., T. Rafiq, LEHIGH, S. Sabbagh, COLUMBIA U, G. Wurden, LANL, and M. C. Zarnstorff, PPPL US Collabora)on on JET D-‐T Experiments David N. Hill, LLNL Develop the basis for PMI solu)ons for FNSF and DEMO Ma:hew M. Hopkins, Sandia Na)onal Laboratories Overcoming Cultural Challenges to Increasing Reliance on Predic)ve Simula)on W. Horton, H. L. Berk, C. Michoski, and D. Meyerson, UTEXAS Aus)n, I. Alvarado and L. Wenzel, Na)onal Instruments, Aus)n, Texas, A. Molvik, D. Ryutov, T. Simonen, and B. Hooper, LLNL, J. F. Santarius, UWISC A Fusion Science Facility to Evaluate Materials for Fusion Reactors P. W. Humrickhouse, M. Shimada, B. J. Merrill, L. C. Cadwallader, and C. N. Taylor, Idaho Na)onal Laboratory Tri)um research needs in support of long-‐pulse burning plasmas: gaps, status, and priori)es

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject P. W. Humrickhouse, M. Shimada, B. J. Merrill, L. C. Cadwallader, and C. N. Taylor, Idaho Na)onal Laboratory Tri)um research needs in support of long-‐pulse burning plasmas: new ini)a)ves T. R. Jarboe, C. J. Hansen, A. C. Hossack, G. J. Marklin, K. D. Morgan, B. A. Nelson, D. A. Sutherland, and B. S. Victor Helicity Injected Torus (HIT) Current Drive Program Thomas R. Jarboe PI, Richard Milroy Co-‐PI, Brian Nelson Co-‐PI, and Uri Shumlak Co-‐PI, University of Washington, Carl Sovinec PI, University of Wisconsin, Eric Held, Utah State, Vyacheslav Lukin, NRL Plasma Science and Innova)on Center (PSI-‐Center) at Washington, Wisconsin, Utah State, and NRL T. R. Jarboe, C. J. Hansen, A. C. Hossack, G. J. Marklin, K. D. Morgan, B. A. Nelson, R. Raman, D. A. Sutherland, B. S. Victor, and S. You An Imposed Dynamo Current Drive experiment: studying and developing efficient current drive with sufficient confinement at high temperature For SCIDAC: S. Jardin, PPPL, N. Ferraro, GA, A. Glasser, UWash, V. Izzo, UCSD, S. Kruger TechX, C. Sovinec, HRS Fusion, H. Strauss, UWISC Increased Understanding and Predic)ve Modeling of Tokamak Disrup)ons

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject H. Ji for the WOPA Team Ini)a)ve for Major Opportuni)es in Plasma Astrophysics in Discovery Plasma Science in Fusion Energy Sciences H. Ji, PPPL, C. Forest, UWISC, M. Mauel, Columbia U., S. Prager, PPPL, J. Sarff, PPPL, and E. Thomas, Auburn U. Ini)a)ve for a New Program Component for Intermediate-‐-‐scale Experiments in Discovery Plasma Science in Fusion Energy Sciences C. E. Kessel, P. W. Humrickhouse, N. Morley, S. Smolentsev, M. E. Rensink, T. D. Rognlien Cri)cal Fusion Nuclear Material Science Ac)vi)es Required Over the Next Decade to Establish the Scien)fic Basis for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility C. E. Kessel, J. P. Blanchard, A. Davis, L. El-‐Guebaly, N. Ghoniem, P. W. Humrickhouse, A. Khodak, S. Malang, B. Merrill, N. Morley, G. H. Neilson, F. M. Poli, M. E. Rensink, T. D. Rognlien, A. Rowcliffe, S. Smolentsev, L. Snead, M. S. Tillack, P. Titus, L. Waganer, A. Ying, K. Young, Y. Zhai Cri)cal Fusion Nuclear Material Science Ac)vi)es Required Over the Next Decade to Establish the Scien)fic Basis for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject Mike Kotschenreuther, Swadesh Mahajan, Prashant Valanju, Brent Covele, and Francois Waelbroeck, IFS, University of Texas; Steve Cowley UKAEA, John Canik ORNL, Brian LaBombard MIT, Houyang Guo, GA Taming the Heat Flux Problem, Advanced Divertors towards Fusion Power Predrag Krs)ć, Ins)tute for Advanced Computa)onal Science, SBU, Igor Kaganovich, Daren Stotler, Bruce Koel, PPPL Priori)es: Integrated Mul)-‐Scale Divertor Simula)on Project Predrag Krs)ć, Ins)tute for Advanced Computa)onal Science, SBU, Igor Kaganovich, Daren Stotler, Bruce Koel PPPL Ini)a)ves: Integrated Mul)-‐Scale Divertor Simula)on Project Mark J. Kushner, UMICH, EECS, Co-‐submi:ed by 28 other scien)sts, at 22 other loca)ons A Low Temperature Plasma Science Program: Discovery Science for Societal Benefit Brian LaBombard, MIT PSFC High priority divertor and PMI research on the pathway to FNSF/DEMO.

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject B. LaBombard, E. Marmar, J. Irby, J. Terry, R. Vieira, D.G. Whyte, S. Wolfe, S. Wukitch, N. Asakura, W. Beck, P. Bonoli, D. Brower, J. Doody, L. Delgado-‐Aparicio, R. Ellis, D. Ernst, C. Fiore, R. Granetz, M. Greenwald, Z.S. Hartwig, A. Hubbard, J.W. Hughes, I.H. Hutchinson, C. Kessel, M. Kotschenreuther, S. Krasheninnikiov, R. Leccacorvi, Y. Lin, B. Lipschultz, S. Mahajan, J. Minervini, R. Nygren, R. Parker, F. Poli, M. Porkolab, M.L. Reinke, J. Rice, T. Rognlien, W. Rowan, D. Ryutov, S. Sco:, S. Shiraiwa, D. Terry, C. Theiler, P. Titus, G. Tynan, M. Umansky, P. Valanju, F. Waelbroeck, G. Wallace, A. White, J.R. Wilson, S.J. Zweben ADX: a high field, high power density advanced divertor tokamak experiment. Mission: Develop and demonstrate plasma exhaust and PMI physics solu)ons that scale to long pulse at FNSF/DEMO divertor parameters. T.C. Luce, R.J. Bu:ery, C.C. Pe:y, M.R. Wade, GA Preparing the Founda)ons for Burning Plasmas and Steady-‐state Tokamak Opera)on T.C. Luce, GA Missions and Priori)es for the US Fusion Program—the Role of Burning Plasma and Steady-‐State Tokamak Physics

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject N.C. Luhmann, Jr., A.V. Pham (UC Davis), T. Munsat (U. Colorado) Advanced Electronics Development for Fusion Diagnos)cs R. Maingi, M.A. Jaworski, R. Kaita, R. Majeski, C.H. Skinner, and D.P. Stotler, PPPL, J.P. Allain, D. Andruczyk, D. Currelli, and D.N. Ruzic, Princeton University, B.E. Koel, UIUC A Liquid Metal PFC Ini)a)ve E. S. Marmar, on behalf of the MIT Alcator Team Priori)es and Opportuni)es, White Paper for MIT/PSFC 10 Year Research Plan E. S. Marmar, on behalf of the MIT Alcator Team Ini)a)ves led by the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center: Successful Comple)on of Alcator C-‐Mod and Transi)on to a New, Advanced Divertor High-‐Field Tokamak Facility M. Mauel, D. Garnier, J. Kesner, P. Michael, M. Porkolab, T. Roberts, P. Woskov, Dept of Applied Physics and Applied Math, Columbia U., MIT PSFC Mul)-‐University Research to Advance Discovery Fusion Energy Science using a Superconduc)ng Laboratory Magnetosphere

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject J. Menard, R. Fonck, R. Majeski for the NSTX-‐U, Pegasus, and LTX research teams U.S. Spherical Tokamak Program Ini)a)ves for the Next Decade T. Munsat (U. Colorado), N.C. Luhmann, Jr. (UC Davis), B. Tobias (PPPL) Center for Imaging and Visualiza)on in Tokamak Plasmas R. R. Parker, G-‐S. Baek, P. T. Bonoli, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, M. Porkolab, S. Shiraiwa, G. M. Wallace, S. J. Wukitch, D. Whyte, MIT PSFC RF Actuators for Steady-‐State Tokamak Development C. K. Phillips PPPL and P. T. Bonoli MIT, L. A. Berry, XCEL, N. Bertelli, PPPL, D. D’Ippolito, Lodestar, D. L. Green, ORNL, R.W. Harvey, CompX, E. F. Jaeger, XCEL, J. Myra, Lodestar, Y. Petrov, CompX, M. Porkolab, S. Shiraiwa, MIT, D.N. Smithe, TechX, E. J. Valeo, PPPL, and J. C. Wright, MIT Interna)onal Collabora)ve Ini)a)ve for RF Simula)on Models in support of ITER and the ITER Integrated Modeling Program: Status and Priori)es C. K. Phillips PPPL and P. T. Bonoli MIT, L. A. Berry, XCEL, N. Bertelli, PPPL, D. D’Ippolito, Lodestar, D. L. Green, ORNL, R.W. Harvey, CompX, E. F. Jaeger, XCEL, J. Myra, Lodestar, Y. Petrov, CompX, M. Porkolab, S. Shiraiwa, MIT, D.N. Smithe, TechX, E. J. Valeo, PPPL, and J. C. Wright, MIT Interna)onal Collabora)ve Ini)a)ve for RF Simula)on Models in support of ITER and the ITER Integrated Modeling Program: Proposed Ini)a)ve

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject Leanne Pitchford, LAPLACE, CNRS and University of Toulouse III, France The Plasma Data Exchange Project and the LXCat Plaoorm Leanne Pitchford, LAPLACE, CNRS and University of Toulouse, France Resource request for the Plasma Data Exchange Project and the LXCat plaoorm M. Podesta, D. Darrow, E. Fredrickson, G.-‐Y. Fu1, N. Gorelenkov, J. Menard, and R. White, PPPL, J. K. Anderson, UWisc, W. Boeglin, FIU, B. Breizman, UTexas, D. Brennan, Princeton U., A. Fasoli, CRPP/EPFL, Z. Lin, UCLA Irvine, S. D. Pinches and J. Snipes, ITER, S. Tripathi, UCLA LA, M. Van Zeeland, GA Development of tools for understanding, predic)ng and controlling fast ion driven instabili)es in fusion plasmas S. Prager, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory The PPPL Perspec)ve on Ten Year Planning in Magne)c Fusion R. Prater, R.I. Pinsker, V. Chan, A. Garofalo, C. Pe:y, M. Wade, GA Op)mize Current Drive Techniques Enabling Steady-‐State Opera)on of Burning Plasma Tokamaks R. Raman, UWash, T.R. Jarboe, UWash, J.E. Menard, S.P. Gerhardt and M. Ono, PPPL Development of a Fast Time Response Electromagne)c Disrup)on Mi)ga)on System R. Raman, UWash, T.R. Jarboe, and B.A. Nelson, UWash, T. Brown, J.E. Menard, D. Mueller, and M. Ono, PPPL Simplifying the ST and AT Concepts

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject J. Rapp, D.L. Hillis, J.P. Allain, J.N. Brooks, H.Y. Guo, A. Hassanein, D. Hill, R. Maingi, D. Ruzic, O Schmitz, E. Scime, G. Tynan Material Facili)es Ini)a)ve: MPEX and FMITS S.A. Sabbagh and J.M. Hanson, Columbia U., N. Commaux, ORNL, N. Eidie)s, R. La Haye, and M. Walker, GAVE, S.P. Gerhardt, E. Kolemen. J.E. Menard, PPPL, B. Granetz, MIT, V. Izzo, UCSD, R. Raman, U. WASHINGTON, S. Woodruff, Woodruff Scien)fic Cri)cal Need for Disrup)on Predic)on, Avoidance, and Mi)ga)on in Tokamaks Alla Safronova, Physics Department, University of Nevada Significance of Atomic Physics for Magne)cally Confined Fusion and High-‐Energy-‐Density Laboratory Plasmas, Status, priori)es, and ini)a)ves white paper J.S. Sarff, A.F. Almagri, J.K. Anderson, D.L. Brower, B.E. Chapman, D. Craig, D.R. Demers, D.J. Den Hartog, W. Ding, C.B. Forest, J.A. Goetz, K.J. McCollam, M.D. Nornberg, C.R. Sovinec, P.W. Terry, and Collaborators Opportuni)es and Context for Reversed Field Pinch Research Ann Satsangi, OFES DOE Discovery Plasma Science: A ques)on on Facili)es

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject T. Schenkel, P. Seidl, W. Waldron, A. Persaud, LBNL, John Barnard and Alex Friedman, LLNL, E. Gilson, I. Kaganovich, and R. Davidson, PPPL, A. Minor and P. Hosemann, University of California, Berkeley Discovery Science with Intense, Pulsed Ion Beams Peter Seidl, Thomas Schenkel, Arun Persaud, and W.L. Waldron, LBNL, John Barnard and Alex Friedman, LLNL, Erik Gilson, Igor Kaganovich, and Ronald Davidson, PPPL Heavy-‐Ion-‐Driven Iner)al Fusion Energy David R. Smith, UWISC Data science and data accessibility at na)onal fusion facili)es E.J. Strait, GA Establishing the Basis for Sustained Tokamak Fusion through Stability Control and Disrup)on Avoidance: (I) Present Status E.J. Strait, GA Establishing the Basis for Sustained Tokamak Fusion through Stability Control and Disrup)on Avoidance: (II) Proposed Research William Tang, PPPL Validated Integrated Fusion Simula)ons Enabled by Extreme Scale Compu)ng

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject P.W. Terry UWISC, Peter Ca:o MIT, Nikolai Gorelenkov PPPL, Jim Myra LODESTAR, Dmitri Ryutov LLNL, Phil Snyder GA, and F. Waelbroeck UTEXAS Role of Analy)c Theory in the US Magne)c Fusion Program The University Fusion Associa)on The Role of Universi)es in Discovery Science Mickey R. Wade, GA, for the DIII-‐D Team Developing the Scien)fic Basis for the Burning Plasma Era and Fusion Energy Development, (A 10-‐Year Vision for DIII-‐D) Anne White, Paul Bonoli, Bob Granetz, Mar)n Greenwald, Zach Hartwig, Jerry Hughes, Jim Irby, Brian LaBombard, Earl Marmar, Miklos Porkolab, Syun’ichi Shiraiwa, Rui Vieira, Greg Wallace, and Graham Wright, MIT, David Brower, Neal Crocker, and Terry Rhodes, UCLA, Walter Gu:enfelder, PPPL, Chris Holland, UCSD, Nathan Howard, ORISE, George McKee, UWISC A new research ini)a)ve for “Valida)on Teams” G. Wurden, S. Hsu, T. Intrator, C. Grabowski, J. Degnan, M. Domonkos, P. Turchi, M. Herrmann, D. Sinars, M. Campbell , R. Be} , D. Ryutov, B. Bauer, I. Lindemuth, R. Siemon, R. Miller, M. Laberge, M. Delage Magneto-‐Iner)al Fusion

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject D. Whyte, MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Exploi)ng high magne)c fields from new superconductors will provide a faster and more a:rac)ve fusion development path X. Q. Xu, LLNL Interna)onal collabora)on on theory, valida)on, and integrated simula)on J. Freidberg, E. Marmar, MIT, H. Neilson , M. Zarnstorff, PPPL The Case for QUASAR (NCSX) Thomas Klinger, Hans-‐Stephan Bosch, Per Helander, Thomas Sunn Pedersen, Robert Wolf Max-‐Planck Ins)tute for Plasma Physics A Perspec)ve on QUASAR Thomas Klinger, Hans-‐Stephan Bosch, Per Helander, Thomas Sunn Pedersen, Robert Wolf Max-‐Planck Ins)tute For Plasma Physics Status And Prospects Of The U.S. Collabora)on With The Max-‐Planck Ins)tute For Plasma Physics On Stellarator Research On The Wendelstein 7-‐X Device H. Neilson, D. Gates, M. Zarnstorff, S. Prager, PPPL Management Strategy for QUASAR Members of the Na)onal Stellarator Coordina)ng Commi:ee Control of High-‐Performance Steady-‐State Plasmas: Status of Gaps and Stellarator Solu)ons

Community White Papers Author(s) Title or Subject Members of the Na)onal Stellarator Coordina)ng Commi:ee Solu)ons for Steady-‐State High Performance MFE: A U.S. Stellarator Program for the Next Ten Years Oliver Schmitz, UWISC, on behalf of U.S. stellarator collaborators Development of 3-‐D divertor solu)ons for stellarators through coordinated domes)c and interna)onal research Ma: Landreman, University of Maryland, on behalf of the US Stellarator Coordina)ng Commi:ee 3D theory and computa)on: A cost-‐effec)ve means to address “long-‐pulse” and “control” gaps

Community Workshops and Presenta)ons

Tues (12 talks) 3 June: “Heat Fluxes, Neutron Fluences, Long Pulse Length” [i.e., Burning Plasma: Long Pulse] 0830 Fonck, Perspec0ves on 10-‐Year Planning for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program 0900 Kessel, Cri0cal Fusion Nuclear Material Science Ac0vi0es Required Over the Next

Decade to Establish the Scien0fic Basis for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility 0930 Abdou, Scien0fic Framework for Advancing Blanket/FW/Tri0um Fuel Cycle Systems

towards FNSF & DEMO Readiness 1000 Wirth An Integrated, Component-‐level Approach to Fusion Materials Development 1030 Break 1045 Hill, Develop the Basis for PMI Solu0ons for FNSF 1115 Callis, Applied Scien0fic Research for Blanket and Nuclear Components to Enable

Design of the Next-‐Step BP Device 1145 Lunch 1345 Zarnstorff, U.S. strategies for an innova0ve stellarator-‐based FNSF 1415 Bugery, Establishing the Physics Basis for Sustaining a High b BP in Steady-‐State 1445 Prater, Op0mize Current Drive Techniques Enabling S-‐S Opera0on of BP Tokamaks 1515 Break 1535 Garofalo, Leveraging Interna0onal Collabora0ons to Accelerate FNSF Development 1605 Harris, Alterna0ves and prospects for development of the U.S. stellarator program 1635 Landreman, 3D theory & computa0on as a major driver for advances in stellarators

Wednesday (12 talks) 4 June: ““Astrophysical Phenomena, Plasma Control Important for Industrial Applica0ons” [i.e., Discovery Science] 0840 Glenzer, High-‐Energy Density science at 4th genera0on Light Sources 0910 Seidl, Heavy-‐Ion-‐Driven Iner0al Fusion Energy 0940 Schenkel, Discovery Science with Intense, Pulsed Ion Beams 1010 Break 1030 Jarboe, A pre-‐Proof-‐of-‐Principle experiment of a spheromak formed and

sustained by Imposed Dynamo Current-‐Drive (IDCD) 1100 Ji, Major Opportuni0es in Plasma Astrophysics 1130 Lunch 1315 Petrasso, Oppositely directed laser beams at OMEGA-‐EP for advancing HED

Physics: A Finding & Recommenda0on of the Omega Laser Users Group 1345 Fox, Lab astrophysics & basic plasma physics with HED, laser-‐produced plasmas 1415 Drake, R. P, Challenges and Opportuni0es in High-‐Energy-‐Density Lab Plasmas 1445 Break 1505 Kushner, Science Issues in Low Temperature Plasmas: Overview, Progress, Needs 1535 Raitses, Plasma Science Associated with Modern Nanotechnology 1605 Donnelly, Igni0on Delays in Pulsed Tandem Induc0vely Coupled Plasmas System 1635 Kaganovich, DoD’s Mul0-‐Ins0tu0on Collabora0ons for Discovery Science

Thurs (12 talks) 5 June: “Discovery Science, Advanced Measurement for Valida0on,” [i.e., Discovery Science] 0840 Wurden, Long-‐pulse physics via interna0onal stellarator collabora0on 0910 Schmitz, Development of 3-‐D divertor solu0ons for stellarators through

coordinated domes0c and interna0onal research 0940 Krs'c, Mul0scale, integrated divertor plasma-‐material simula0on 1010 Break 1030 Sarff, Opportuni0es and Context for Reversed Field Pinch Research 1100 Mauel, Mul0-‐University Research to Advance Discovery Fusion Energy Science

using a Superconduc0ng Laboratory Magnetosphere 1130 Lunch 1315 Ji, Importance of Intermediate-‐scale Experiments in Discovery Plasma Science 1345 Eihimion, Office of Science Partnerships and Leveraging of Discovery Science 1415 Brennan, The Role of Universi0es in Discovery Science in the FES Program 1445 Break 1505 Whyte, Exploi0ng high magne0c fields from new superconductors will provide

a faster and more ahrac0ve fusion development path 1535 Minervini, Superconduc0ng Magnets Research for a Viable U.S. Fusion Program 1605 Parker, RF Actuators for Steady-‐State Tokamak Development 1635 LaBombard, A na0onally organized, advanced divertor tokamak test facility is

needed to demonstrate plasma exhaust and PMI solu0ons for FNSF/DEMO

Tuesday July 8 Mee'ng (16 talks): 0830 Zohm, ASDEX-‐Upgrade 0905 Horton, JET 0940 Guo, EAST 1015 Break 1045 Kwak, KSTAR 1120 Kamada, The JT-‐60SA research regimes for ITER and DEMO 1155 Litaudon, EUROfusion Roadmap 1225 Litaudon, WEST facility 1300 Lunch 1415 Menard, NSTX-‐U: ST research to accelerate fusion development 1445 Majeski, LTX: Exploring the advantages of liquid lithium walls 1515 Fonck, Ini0a0ves in non-‐solenoidal startup and edge stability dynamics at near-‐unity aspect ra0o in the PEGASUS experiment 1545 Break 1600 Marmar, Successful comple0on of Alcator C-‐Mod, and transi0on to a new, advanced divertor facility (ADX) to solve key challenges in PMI and development of the steady-‐state tokamak: Maintaining world-‐leadership on the high magne0c field path to fusion 1630 Wade, DIII-‐D 10-‐year vision: Develop the scien0fic basis for burning plasma experiments and fusion energy development 1700 Raman, Simplifying the ST and AT concepts 1730 Guo, Developing plasma-‐based divertor solu0ons for next step devices 1800 Coppi, The high-‐field compact line of experiments: From Alcator to Ignitor & beyond 1830 Freidberg, MIT-‐PSFC makes the case for QUASAR

Wednesday July 9 Mee'ng (15 talks): 0830 Greenwald, Implica0ons and lessons from 2007 strategic planning ac0vity and subsequent events: A personal view 0900 Meade, U.S. road map ac0vity 0930 Taylor, A U.S. domes0c program in the ITER era 1000 Greenfield, USBPO high priority research in support of ITER 1030 Break 1100 Boivin, Enhanced Valida0on of Performance-‐Defining Physics through Measurement Innova0on 1130 White, Advanced diagnos0cs for valida0on in high-‐performance toroidal confinement experiments 1200 Crocker, Valida0ng electromagne0c turbulence and transport effects for burning plasmas 1230 Brower, A burning plasma diagnos0c technology ini0a0ve for the U.S. magne0c fusion energy science program 1300 Lunch 1445 Pegy, Preparing for burning plasma opera0on and exploita0on in ITER 1515 Sabbagh, Cri0cal need for disrup0on predic0on, avoidance, and mi0ga0on in tokamaks 1545 Strait, Stability control, disrup0on avoidance, and mi0ga0on 1615 Jardin, Increased understanding and predic0ve modeling of tokamak disrup_ons 1645 Break 1700 Podesta, Development of tools for understanding, predic0ng and controlling fast-‐ion-‐driven instabili0es in burning plasmas 1730 Fu, Integrated simula0on of performance-‐limi0ng MHD and energe0c par0cle instabili0es with micro-‐turbulence 1800 Goldston, A strategy for resolving problems of plasma-‐material interac0on for FNSF

Thursday July 10 Mee'ng (16 talks) 0830 Tang, Validated integrated fusion simula0ons enabled by extreme scale compu0ng 0900 Snyder, Crossing the threshold to predic0on-‐driven research and device design 0930 Hammeg, Integrated compu0ng ini0a0ve to predict fusion device performance and study possible improvements 1000 Chang, First-‐principles simula0on of whole fusion device on leadership class high-‐performance computers in collabora0on with ASCR scien0sts 1030 Break 1100 Xu, Interna0onal collabora0on on theory, valida0on, and integrated simula0on 1130 Phillips, Interna0onal collabora0ve ini0a0ve for RF simula0on models in support of ITER and the ITER integrated modeling program 1200 Cago, Unique opportuni0es to advance theory and simula0ons of RF hea0ng & current drive and core & pedestal physics at reactor relevant regimes in the Advanced Divertor Experiment 1230 Terry, Role of analy0c theory in the U.S. magne0c fusion program 1300 Lunch 1415 Hillis, Materials facili0es ini0a0ve 1445 Unterberg, Advanced Materials Valida0on in Toroidal Systems for Next-‐Step Devices 1515 Maingi, A liquid-‐metal plasma-‐facing-‐component ini0a0ve 1545 Jaworski, Liquid metal plasma-‐material interac0on science and component development toward integrated demonstra0on 1615 Allain, Establishing the surface science and engineering of liquid-‐metal plasma-‐facing components 1645 Break 1700 Baylor, Plasma controlling and sustainment technologies that enable long-‐pulse burning plasma science 1730 Gekelman, The Basic Plasma Science Facility – Upgrade for the next decade & beyond 1800 Prager, The PPPL perspec0ve on the charge to the FESAC strategic planning panel

Conclusion and Summary

Conclusion and Summary

End